726, they're definitely not lamented number. but mr. lewis and mrs. gibson may be arguing in a moment, i don't want to put words in their mouth, but my understanding is they're going to claim that of the three types of projects, that it's not that first type that you're arguing but it's the second type of project which are the installation of small, new equipment and facilities in small structures that should apply and not -- doesn't involve limited numbers but i'll just ask to you respond, why does your type one apply and not type two of this class three of categorical exemptions? .my point is that if you read those they are almost an identical. one is to locate in limited numbers of small structures. the second is installing new equipment and facilities in small structures. what is the difference? the only logical answer is one

of them talked about locating them and one talks about installing equipment in them. that was my interpretation. i do not think it matters very much. the limited number i think is important. but even if it fits -- even if there is substantial evidence to support your staff that that is a reasonable interpretation, especially if there is a case i am not aware of on this particular point, there are exceptions. this exemption is in applicable is -- is not applicable when there is cumulative impact. all of the lists on class 3, they talk about three things, not 726 things. it is not just a trigger. the whole idea of a category is that these are things that should not create a problem. if there is a reason to think that there is some other

environmental problem, that there may be a problem, supreme court case law says if you have evidence that there could be a significant impact, do not do the categorical exemption. i do not know if through the chair i need to wait for a question. president chiu: we appreciate your perspective on the notice issue. >> i think there is a problem with the notice and it underscores, i think, a couple of contradictory things we're hearing from the city attorney's office, respectfully. there was a representation made that the staff reviewed this. there has not been environment for review. there has been no environmental analysis. there is an exemption from the analysis. the state said all 726 or looked at and there were found to have no impact. that is not borne out by the record.

lee also heard from the city attorney that how could you notice this whole project, because they do not know yet where all the boxes are going to go. there has not been analysis of 726 boxes. all they said is they would apply certain criteria. the regulations provide for discretionary review to reduce environmental impact. those are the magic words that trigger ceqa. the resolutions you have to locate and improve boxes based on minimizing pedestrian safety, reducing is that the impact, protecting historic neighborhoods -- all the things in those regulations are not exempt from ceqa. those are discretionary considerations that beg for environmental review. i believe in a test is inadequate. we are here and would like to present to this board. we do believe the notice appears on the face to not give the public understanding of what was being considered here today.

supervisor avalos: actually, you asked my question. it was answered. president chiu: thank you. supervisor weiner: with respect to the brown act, i do not know if it matters, but in terms of -- the agenda is not in a vacuum. their attachments to the agenda, hyperlinks on the website. and i believe they are in the binder in the clerk's office. that includes all the documentation from the planning department, which made crystal clear this was about 726 boxes. so i am not sure. i am not an expert on the brown act in terms of whether you just look at the face of the agenda or all the attachments, but anyone and glancing at the attachments would know this is about the entire project. i also have a question.

given that the appellate are now taking the position that this is the brown act violation, i do not know whether it was, it strikes me that it might not have been, but if they are taking that position, i have concerns about conducting a hearing and then having the appellants potentially raise the issue in court later. then the whole process topples down. i would request guidance from the city attorney. i was hoping that even if we were able to continue this item that we would at least be able to hear from all of these people and close the hearing. what i don't want to do is go through a million hours of public comment, have everyone sit through that, and then have the appellant take the position that this was the brown act violation, and have to waste everyone's time again. i want to get verification on that, given the statement by the appellants that they are officially taking the position that this is the brown act

violation. i am surprised to hear that position, but they have taken it. >> deputy city attorney cheryl atomdams. i think this note is indefensible. the bold title does reference the entire project. the secondary per preference is the entire project. it references the cat? -- the cadx. that is available in the file and relates to the project in its entirety. the situation is a unique one. normally what happens when we see land use projects coming before the board, it is one project and one determination from planning. i can see why someone would argue that this is a bit different. but you have to understand as well that this -- the only way that this came before us was to have an appeal related to this.

once a permit has been issued, that is what triggers the board's review. and there is a statute of limitation to make the claim. i think it is defensible. i can also see how someone else could disagree. the remedy, if you are concerned that the notice is deficient, would be tore- note is it and to conduct another public hearing. supervisor weiner: again, my concern now that san francisco beautiful has raised this issue is that if we go forward, unless they affirm the cadx -- it just creates problems down the road. i am skeptical there is a brown act violation. from what i know of the brown act and from what i have seen here, it is likely there was not the brown act violation.

but it concerns me to hear the appellant taking the position is. i think it is unfortunate because i know the appellant has brought many people here, who have taken time out of the middle of their day and have potentially wasted their time if this is somehow an invalid hearing. i am disappointed to hear that are taking that position, but that is what i just heard. that is the concern i have now. president chiu: let me suggest the following may -- falling way to move forward to this. are there any of us to believe we should re-much as this hearing and hold another hearing? -- re-notice this hearing and hold another hearing? we could vote on that. we could end this hearing now and what does it again for the future. but at this point, the 11 of us to believe this has been noticed properly. let us put that on the record. a future court can decide based

on any appeal of this case the weather the brown act was violated. i suggest that as a possible way for us to move forward. supervisor campos: let me say that i do not believe that we should re-much as the hearing, -- re-notice the hearing, but i do think someone could make a reasonable argument that it was a brown violation. i do not think they are mutually exclusive. president chiu: point taken. any other comments or questions? think you very much. we will probably hear from you later in the proceeding. i have a number of speaker cards here with regards to individuals that wish to speak on behalf of the appellant. i do want to ask. ms. brandt hawley said there are individuals here to potentially speak to the issue of whether it would be possible for these boxes to be faced -- placed on

private property or to be underground. this is an issue many of us have questions about. i would like to ask if members of the public who are going to speak to that could please step up. supervisor elsbernd: if you can just explain to me before those folks speak -- how does that issue relates to whether or not categorical exemption applies? president chiu: if it turns out that these boxes can actually either be underground or placed on private property, i think on its plan face many of us would believe that the situation of impact to the environment could be mitigated and ought to be looked at. at&t has taken one perspective. we have heard a different perspective from the appellant. supervisor elsbernd: fair enough. but i do not think that answers the question of whether captive

orca exemption applies. it applies or does not apply regardless of whether it can go to private property. president chiu: i think we might have a difference of opinion. are there members of the public who can speak to that? if you can please step up to the microphone. >> i worked as an architect and am familiar with land use issues. there are a number of locations were fences and yards across the public right of way. there are side streets where blocks turn and people have a side yard and sent directly abutting the sidewalk. that happens all over this city. it would be a simple matter for at&t or another utility to sign an agreement with the property owner to move the band back

three or 4 feet, create and build job -- create a little jog, and have their equipment accessible. that is one example of how these can be placed on private property throughout the city. president chiu: we have a lot of speaker kurds but i know a lot of colleagues have questions about this issue. >> i am a past president of san francisco beautiful. i will stick with the specific item. the overall concern we have for the eir is we are lacking up to activity, transparency, and up- to-date review of available technologies. i and other members of the city hall family sat too long meetings in 2005, when we did determine that utility boxes are a blight. part of that is an annual review the available. that meeting was last held in 2006.

that has broken down. that is one more reason we have an -- we need an eir, to get caught up on objective review. there is a country called power wave. i am not an electrical engineer. but i think we are unduly relying on the presentations of a single vendor or telecom. there is a company that has units that worked either on hydraulics on a foot lift -- or on foot lift, and this is an alternative to putting these boxes on the surface. i asked them about the moving parts, the issues of moisture, and so forth. that is what these are designed for. the have footprints of four by six on some of the many units and 12 by 8 on the larger ones. this is not a technology review session, but this is an example of what we would expect at the

other end of an eir -- mitigation techniques. what gives me concern is that at&t, every time we mention underground, pull out a picture of an underground facility that requires more hardware than the box itself. it is like a bunker or an underground living room. this information is published in 2008. we as citizens to leave things have to have advanced. -- believe things have to have advanced. president chiu: in the defense by at&t of why the categorical exception is permissive here, they defend the fact that at&t believes that it is not technologically practical to underground the cabinets. they raised this themselves as an issue. supervisor elsbernd: thank you,

david. the question for the city attorney. just to clarify what we just had. i believe what you are getting at is the notion that the expert testimony we have just received to get at the cumulative impact -- just to be clear, the application here, do we not need "expert testimony" to establish that, or is anecdotal evidence sufficient to establish cumulative impact? >> i am from the city attorney's office. the ceqa law kind of bounces around, depending on what the particular physical environment impact is, whether just the opinion of the layperson, an

individual, is something that would be taken into consideration, or kind of things like traffic, where more experts, or people who are certified. there, it also depends on the particular setting. there are some instances -- for example, there is a recent case in berkeley where some citizens felt the aesthetic impact on the environment in berkeley were inappropriate. that was their position. the court did not accept that as a basis support a finding of visual impact. but there is another case where there was a shed in a rural watershed area where hikers observed there would be visual impact. sometimes, it is the setting that depends on the relevance. supervisor elsbernd: what i am trying to get at is the testimony received on the issue of whether or not these boxes

can be placed underground. respectfully, it does not meet my standard of expert testimony. you are a great guy, but i would not call you an expert on this issue. i would think if we are going to make any findings on this we had better get some more expert testimony than what we have heard thus far. >> i might add we do have the department of public works here. they can speak to the engineering issues undergrounding the kind of facilities that are at stake here. president chiu: i think part of the issue for many of us is whether the planning department should have done a full eir in order to look at whether or not there is additional testimony on the other side of this issue. that is a question many of us are wondering at this point. why do we proceed to the rest of public comment?

let me call of ashley chang, javier marquez, eric butler, roland anderson, alex leoaspe, orange richardson iv, ricky sederis, calvin chen, neal bareck, stephen peck, ramon robinson, and thomas charts. each member of the public will have at least two minutes to speak unless my colleagues have questions. >> thank you for having me, supervisors. i am a community embassador. but i am here today to speak as a resident of district 10. there are overwhelming needs by my community, especially the asian community, about digital

equity. right now, since comcast is the only land line provider in our area -- president chiu: 3 speaking on the side of at&t or the side of the appellants? >> on this side of at&t. president chiu: you will have an opportunity to provide public comment after at&t presents. this is a time to speak on behalf of the appellants. if anyone wants to speak on behalf of the appellants, please step up to the microphone. my guess is there are a lot of folks who checked the rahm box. -- the wrong box. you wish to speak to the appellants. robert longer, samantha wolf, toshira johnson, neal bardeck,

brian webster. anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of the appellants, please step up. >> lawrence rosenfeld, 15-year resident of the inner sunset. on monday, april 18, at the at&t team came out to survey three sites in the inner sunset. the process consisted of asking us where we would like the boxes and telling us the reasons they were not satisfactory locations. for example, the challenges of trenching where there are many tracks. but nothing was said about how the fiber cable gets down the street. i am concerned that the city mandated 18 inch setbacks from the curb will be a problem for people trying to get children out of car seats or disabled persons into wheelchairs' or onto crutches. in a neighborhood that is short on parking, if there is a box

that is blocking egress to your vehicle, you are in a world of hurt. there are enough issues like the parking set back that i think need to be handled from a central point of view, rather than leaving it to concerned residents and business owners in each of the neighborhoods, which seems to be the alternative if these are done on a one by one basis, especially when the formal process only requires residents and property owners in a small radius around the location to be notified. it devolves on to volunteers to mobilize all those affected by each placement. and there are 16 in the inner sunset. if this is not an environmental impact, deserving a thorough, centralized review, i do not know what is. thank you very much. >> peter fortune, a member of

san francisco beautiful. i think the question about expert testimony misses the point. if you have environmental review, you will get expert testimony and can consider alternatives like the undergrounding. there is another alternative. that alternative is no boxes. there is a company in san francisco that provides internet service through fiber optic cables. they do it by micro trenching/ -- trenching. you take a saw and dig a line three-quarters of an inch wide and 10 inches deep. you put the cable in it and top it off by whatever the dpw wants. this shows how minimally intrusive it would be four at&t

to install fiber-optic cable instead of these boxes. if you have environmental review, you can get expert testimony and people to explain how this will be less intrusive. that is one more reason why you need environmental review, to consider the alternative of no boxes. president chiu: next speaker. >> my name is jane winslow. i am here with san francisco beautiful. this proposal to exempt 726 utility boxes from environmental review clashes with several policies of the city pick general plan. policy 2.8, maintain a strong presumption against giving up street areas for private ownership or use.

policy 4.4, design walkways and parking facilities to minimize danger to pedestrians. policy 1.7, a sure expanded mobility for the disadvantaged. these types of contradictions are addressed in an eir. that is why we urge you to conduct one. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> my name is jan blum. do we oppose the categorical exemption granted by the planning department to at&t for the installation of these 726 metal cabinets. there will be a cumulative impact from this massive installation, both individually and cumulatively, upon the quality of the public right of way. we could not agree less with this ruling.

we believe there would be a cumulative impact upon the quality of the public right of way by impeding travel on public streets, by creating visual blight, attracting blowing trash, and otherwise impeding the use of the public right of way. san francisco tomorrow is convinced that a thorough environmental review would demonstrate the at&t proposal is neither the most viable nor the most environmentally superior alternative. we urge you to return the document to the planning department with instructions to prepare an eir. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> merle goldstone, president of north beach. i am here to join other san francisco neighborhoods in support of san francisco beautiful and the appeal of the

at&t proposal to install 726 utility boxes on san francisco sidewalks. this proposal should not be allowed to go forward before all affected neighborhoods have a chance to weigh in. i would like to submit our resolution to the board, which lays out in more detail our concern. thank you. experience has shown that surface-mounted utility boxes are a magnet for graffiti, vandalism, and other forms of light. i have spent most -- spent many volunteer hours painting out graffiti on such utility boxes, while the city is spending our precious tax dollars to do the same. the addition of 726 boxes on our side or provide new opportunities for vandalism and make more work for public works staff and concerned citizens who care about how our city looks.

we urge the city to follow the department of public works order 175,566, year 2005, which regulates that this equipment replaced underground or on private property, as it impedes travel on public streets, inconveniences' property owners, and creates visual blight. thank you for considering this appeal. >> linda chapman from not hill -- nob hill. supervisor mar said he wished he had more opportunity to look at this. some of you are lawyers. i had to study the ceqa guidelines in connection with writing a support document for the appeal about live nation. it is very easy to read. it is plain english. it is very vanilla.

it would be very clear to you, what they were intended to do was not to chop big hunks out of ceqa or have something handy for the planning staff. it is really four things that are common sense. -- for things that are common sense. i am not surprised the judge expects planning to return the decision to use a cadex in that case. the second thing is i used to be a civil rights specialist. i dealt with disability. one of the things that concerns people is having impediments' like this in the public right of way for people with visual impairment are using real tears. even i run into an impediment all the time, outside the theater. every time i come to it, i have

to decide whether to walk into traffic or go under this structure where i expect to be mugged, as has happened to me in the past. there is a pedestrian public impact here which needs to be considered. last, i am going to say what are they doing in paris, london, rome, venice, and other cities? we do not have to consider doing the same thing that might work out in nevada, where they do not have a downtown center, and where they do not have the aesthetic concerns. we should look at what they are doing. president chiu: thank you. >> i am the founder of a small isp in san francisco. the u.s. is no. 30 in the world in internet speeds. weed